Case: 12-13858 Date Filed: 01/31/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13858
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:03-cr-00051-LC-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARVIN ANTHONY WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 31, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13858 Date Filed: 01/31/2013 Page: 2 of 5
Marvin Williams, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750, which
reduced the guideline levels applicable to certain crack cocaine offenses. On
appeal, he argues that, even though he was sentenced as a career offender, he is
still eligible for relief under Amendment 750 in light of two district court
decisions. Moreover, he has submitted proof of extensive post-conviction activity
that he argues should be viewed favorably in considering the purposes of
sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal
authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th
Cir. 2008). A district court may not modify a term of imprisonment unless a
defendant was sentenced “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In
addressing whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction, a district court
is to consider only the effect of the applicable guideline amendment. United States
v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780-81 (11th Cir. 2000). Thus, “all original sentencing
determinations remain unchanged with the sole exception of the guideline range
that has been amended since the original sentencing.” Id. at 781 (emphasis in
original). Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, made retroactively
applicable on November 1, 2011, by Amendment 759, makes permanent the
2
Case: 12-13858 Date Filed: 01/31/2013 Page: 3 of 5
temporary emergency Amendment 748, which revised the crack cocaine quantity
tables listed in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) and the drug equivalency tables in U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1, comment. (n.10(D)). See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 750, Reason for
Amend.; id., Amend. 759.
In Moore, we addressed whether Amendment 706, which similarly reduced
the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses, authorized reductions under
§ 3582(c)(2) for defendants who had been convicted of crack cocaine offenses, but
had been sentenced under the career offender guidelines. See Moore, 541 F.3d at
1325. We explained that § 3582(c)(2) only authorizes reductions to sentences that
were “based on” sentencing ranges that were subsequently lowered. Id. at 1327.
As Amendment 706 did not lower the career offender offense levels, we concluded
that it did not lower the sentencing range upon which a career offender’s sentence
had been based. Id. We also explained that the commentary to § 1B1.10 “[made]
clear” that a § 3582(c)(2) reduction was not authorized where an amendment
lowered a defendant’s base offense level for the offense of conviction, but not the
career offender sentencing range under which the defendant was sentenced. Id. at
1327-28; see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)). Moore is binding
precedent in this circuit. United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir.),
cert. denied, No. 12-6573 (U.S., Oct. 29, 2012).
On November 14, 2012, we decided United States v. Berry, in which we
3
Case: 12-13858 Date Filed: 01/31/2013 Page: 4 of 5
addressed the applicability of Amendment 750 and the Fair Sentencing Act of
2010 (“FSA”) in the context of an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. No.
12-11150, manuscript op. (11th Cir. Nov. 14, 2012). Berry was convicted of a
crack cocaine offense and sentenced in 2002, and his initial guideline range was
360 months to life imprisonment, which was based on his status as a career
offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b), not on the drug quantity tables in § 2D1.1. Id.
at 3. In addition, because Berry had two prior felony drug convictions, he was
subject to a statutory mandatory minimum life sentence under 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A) (2009), such that his guideline sentence became life imprisonment,
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c)(2). Id. at 3-4 & n.2. Berry filed a § 3582(c)(2)
motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 750, and the motion was
denied. Id. at 3. On appeal, we affirmed, holding that the District Court did not
have the authority to grant Berry’s § 3582(c)(2) motion because Amendment 750
had no effect on Berry’s initial guideline range of 360 months to life imprisonment
or his guideline sentence of life imprisonment. Id. at 4.
We conclude that the District Court did not err in denying Williams’s §
3582(c)(2) motion. Although Amendment 750 would have reduced Williams’s
initial base offense level under § 2D1.1(c), the District Court sentenced him as a
career offender who faced a statutory minimum term of imprisonment because that
sentence was required by the guidelines. His base offense level under § 2D1.1,
4
Case: 12-13858 Date Filed: 01/31/2013 Page: 5 of 5
therefore, did not affect the calculation of his guideline sentence range or his
guideline sentence of life imprisonment, and thus Amendment 750 did not alter the
sentencing range upon which his sentence was based.
AFFIRMED.
5